Chaldaeans.”  The similarity of sound was the cause of its being for a long time associated with the Arrapakhitis of classical times; the tendency is now to recognise in it the country nearest to the ancient domain of the Chaldaeans, i.e.  Babylonia proper.

*** Ur-Kashdim has long been sought for in the north, either at Orfa, in accordance with the tradition of the Syrian Churches still existing in the East, or in a certain Ur of Mesopotamia, placed by Ammianus Marcellinus between Nisibis and the Tigris; at the present day Halevy still looks for it on the Syrian bank of the Euphrates, to the south-east of Thapsacus.  Rawlin-son’s proposal to identify it with the town of Uru has been successively accepted by nearly all Assyriologists.  Sayce remarks that the worship of Sin, which was common to both towns, established a natural link between them, and that an inhabitant of Uru would have felt more at home in Harran than in any other town.

     **** The names of Sarah and Abraham, or rather the earlier
     form, Abram, have been found, the latter under the form
     Abiramu, in the contracts of the first Chaldaean empire.

And they came unto Kharan, and dwelt there, and Terakh died in Kharan.* It is a question whether Kharan is to be identified with Harran in Mesopotamia, the city of the god Sin; or, which is more probable, with the Syrian town of Hauran, in the neighbourhood of Damascus.  The tribes who crossed the Euphrates became subsequently a somewhat important people.  They called themselves, or were known by others, as the ’Ibrim, or Hebrews, the people from beyond the river;** and this appellation, which we are accustomed to apply to the children of Israel only, embraced also, at the time when the term was most extended, the Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites, Ishmaelites, Midianites, and many other tribes settled on the borders of the desert to the east and south of the Dead Sea.

* Gen. xi. 27-32.  In the opinion of most critics, verses 27, 31 32 form part of the document which was the basis of the various narratives still traceable in the Bible; it is thought that the remaining verses bear the marks of a later redaction, or that they may be additions of a later date.  The most important part of the text, that relating the migration from Ur-Kashdim to Kharan, belongs, therefore, to the very oldest part of the national tradition, and may be regarded as expressing the knowledge which the Hebrews of the times of the Kings possessed concerning the origin of their race.

** The most ancient interpretation identified this nameless river with the Euphrates; an identification still admitted by most critics; others prefer to recognise it as being the Jordan.  Halevy prefers to identify it with one of the rivers of Damascus, probably the Abana.

These peoples all traced their descent from Abraham, the son of Terakh, but the children of Israel claimed